User:Mnbella/Women in warfare and the military (2000–present)/Pshah24 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Mnbella
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Mnbella

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The writer did not make changes to the lead to the article. They decided to the body of the article instead. They did not need to make edits to the lead because the existing introduction makes sense with the added content.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is definitely relevant to the topic. The writer included perspectives from many different countries to have a well-rounded view of women in warfare. The information for most of the countries mentioned is recent. However, there is some information that is not up-to-date so it would be helpful to add information for them that is more recent. There is no information that does not belong or information that seems to be missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral because there seems to be obvious bias from the writer that is present in the writing. There are no claims that are heavily biased towards one position because there is information regarding allowing women to be in more combative positions in the military but also includes information about countries that have rules against women being in positions of combat in the military. There is more information about countries that allow women to be in combative or higher-up positions in the military. However, overall, the content does not seems to push the reader into believing one viewpoint more than the other.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the sources are not backed by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough because the offer the relevant and necessary information that is needed to add to the existing wikipedia article. The sources are current which allows for up-to-date information to be added to the article. Most of the links work but the third link does not work when trying to open it.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is very easy to read and is clear. It is, overall, concise which allows new readers to read and understand the information. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. Yes, it is very well organized because it is split into paragraphs by the country it is referencing. However, one edit that could help the readers understand the timeline better would be if there paragraphs were organized chronologically based on the years, some policies or rules were passed or just the years that are mentioned in the information.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no added images or media. There seems to be no real need to add any images or media either,

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content definitely improves the overall quality of the article because it provides additional details in regards to countries around the world in regards to women in different positions in the military. Also, it goes into details regarding the amount of women in higher-up positions or combative positions in those countries if that is allowed. The strengths of the content added is that it provides extra details to help the reader recognize the possibilities of positions women have of serving in the military around the world. Also, it has examples of countries that do and do not allow women to be in combative positions so there is information that is from both viewpoints. The content added can be improved arranging the different paragraphs chronologically based on the years that are mentioned in the content. Also there can be more information about countries that do not allow women to be in combative positions or information about other countries that do that to balance out the two viewpoints.